Self-determination, warts and all, has been the defining essence of the nation-state throughout history, which is why the UN charter qualified it only in cases of cross-border aggression and humanitarian relief. The British foreign secretary David Miliband loves democracy. We all love democracy. We also love capitalism, social welfare, child health, book learning and leatherback turtles. We would like the whole world to love them too, and we stand ready to persuade it so. But do we shoot anyone who refuses? It is hardly credible that two centuries since Immanuel Kant wrestled with this oldest of ethical conundrums, a British government still cannot tell the difference between espousing a moral imperative and enforcing one.

On Feb 12 in Oxford, England, Miliband decided to update the 1998 Chicago speech of his then mentor, Tony Blair, in which Blair tore up the UN’s sovereignty provisions in favour of the new “liberal interventionism”. He proposed a doctrine of international community, which he claimed, like St Teresa, to have “witnessed”. This required Britain to attack sovereign states unprovoked if this would end a violation of human rights.

Blair qualified his zeal with reference to military feasibility, a “readiness for long-term commitment” and “our national interest truly engaged”.

Like any interference in the lives of others, the motives were soon mixed and the language confused. How feasible is feasible? How long is long term? What is an “engaged” national interest: a moral crusade or an arms deal? Nonetheless, as Kosovo and Sierra Leone were to show, Blair was right to acknowledge a humanitarian instinct beyond relieving the starving, as in Biafra or Ethiopia. In 1993 the liberal Washington Post was goading the US to invade Somalia, since states that “treat their peoples badly” should lose the protection of the UN charter’s protection. Such unilateral rewriting ended in tears, but this did nothing to halt the exhilarating “virtues imperialism” of many on the left and right.

There is no text in international law that justifies ramming a system of government down the throats of others. Self-determination, warts and all, has been the defining essence of the nation-state throughout history, which is why the UN charter qualified it only in cases of cross-border aggression and humanitarian relief. The robustness of this doctrine is shown in half a century of relative peace worldwide. Democracy everywhere has emerged when individuals give or withhold consent and rulers are confident enough to accept their verdict.

There is one simple way of honouring the United Kingdom’s pride in its chosen system: prove it works at home better than any other. This is not easy, as Miliband should know in his failed bid to regenerate civic democracy. It may seem small beer, but how can he preach reform to others when he cannot achieve the tiniest reform himself? The west can invite the world to witness the virtues of democracy. It can deploy the soft power of education, exchange, publicity and aid. But a true democrat cannot abandon Voltaire’s respect for the autonomy of disagreement, let alone seek to crush it. The United Kingdom can shine its beacon abroad but it cannot impose its values on the worlds. It has tried too often, and has failed. This is not isolationism. It is fact. — The Guardian